[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cc-vars.el

From: Miles Bader
Subject: Re: cc-vars.el
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:57:49 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:45:19PM +0100, Martin Stjernholm wrote:
> > E.g. when it sees (if (fboundp 'SYMBOL) ACTION ...), it could push
> > SYMBOL on a list of functions not to warn about, while it was compiling
> > ACTION.  [other forms that macroexpand into `if' without modifying the
> > condition would work too]
> > 
> > _That_ sort of change is pretty easy, and has the advantage of working
> > even with old compilers that don't special case it (they'll just emit a
> > warning like before, but the generated code will be the same).
> > [Think of it as a pragma expressed in code...]
> That's the problem; you can't get the pragma without getting the code
> then.  E.g. if ACTION gets very large and I decide to split it up in
> several functions I had to add otherwise completely unnecessary
> fboundp checks in them just to silence the compiler.

Why does it matter?  A few extra fboundp checks at load-time are so utterly
inconsequential that it's hardly worth worrying about the possibility that
they might be generated in some cases.

Do you have _real_ examples of a case where this method causes problems?
If not, we shouldn't waste time wondering if there _might_ be some -- this
simply isn't a very important issue.

We are all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
-Oscar Wilde

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]